Re: "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)

2023-11-24 Thread Sebastien Bacher
Hey Erich, I'm a relatively new member of the TB and not familiar with how flavors were granted LTS status in the past but let me share my perspective on what you wrote. Le 24/11/2023 à 07:02, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : That said, this seems way too detailed for a repeated LTS. I will certa

Re: "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)

2023-11-24 Thread Erich Eickmeyer
Hi Seb, On 11/24/23 06:40, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Hey Erich, I'm a relatively new member of the TB and not familiar with how flavors were granted LTS status in the past but let me share my perspective on what you wrote. Le 24/11/2023 à 07:02, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : That said, this se

Re: "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)

2023-11-24 Thread Erich Eickmeyer
Hi Seb, On 11/24/23 06:40, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Hey Erich, I'm a relatively new member of the TB and not familiar with how flavors were granted LTS status in the past but let me share my perspective on what you wrote. Le 24/11/2023 à 07:02, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : That said, this se

Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)

2023-11-24 Thread Aaron Rainbolt
On 11/23/23 23:02, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 02:10:54PM -0800, Erich Eickmeyer wrote: Hi Lukasz, I'm a bit taken-aback by the "support plan" request as for 20.04 LTS and 22.04 LTS this was never requested, and so as far as I know we would have to start from scratch. Since I'm

Re: LTS Qualification for Xubuntu 24.04

2023-11-24 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Sean, On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 09:01:01AM -0500, Sean Davis wrote: > Hello Technical Board, > I'd like to qualify Xubuntu 24.04 as an LTS release, supported for 3 years. > Key contacts include myself (bluesabre), Unit193, and Pasi Lallinaho > (knome). We have several other active members of the

Re: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification

2023-11-24 Thread Erich Eickmeyer
Hi Lukasz, I'm going to use Xubuntu's one-paragraph example for this as it seems reasonable and was approved by Steve, which sets a precedent. Our support plan is limited to the Ubuntu Studio package set which is generally updates and bugfixes to the multimedia packages we include, as well a

Re: Ubuntu Unity participation in LTS

2023-11-24 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Rudra, Thanks for reaching out on this. On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 07:21:55PM +0530, Rudra Saraswat wrote: > Hi, > Speaking on behalf of Ubuntu Unity, we would like to take part in the > upcoming 24.04 LTS. > Here are the Ubuntu wiki pages for both points of contact: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/

Re: Ubuntu Unity participation in LTS

2023-11-24 Thread Jeremy Bícha
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:17 PM Steve Langasek wrote: >- unity-setting-daemon: no upstream release since 2015, no uploads > since 2022 (including a no-change rebuild that bumped the upstream > part of the package version number?!) The second unity-settings-daemon 2022 up

Re: Ubuntu Unity participation in LTS

2023-11-24 Thread Steve Langasek
(not really relevant to the subject, but) On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 08:48:01PM -0500, Jeremy Bícha wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:17 PM Steve Langasek > wrote: > >- unity-setting-daemon: no upstream release since 2015, no uploads > > since 2022 (including a no-change rebuild th

Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)

2023-11-24 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:20:53AM -0600, Aaron Rainbolt wrote: > SRUs in packages used by flavors (including flavor-specific packages) are > also common. Speaking as a member of the SRU Team as well, I don't actually see evidence of this. There has been a run of SRUs right at the time of the ma

Re: ubuntu-advantage-tools SRU exception policy review

2023-11-24 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:26:53PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > I have been reluctant to sign off on this as written because it could be > > taken to imply that all freezing in the development cycle is ignorable for > > these purposes. > As you can imagine that was not the purpose, good ca